WAYNE FORD, APPELLANT,
v.
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Ford appeals a Public Employees Relations Commission order denying his request for a belated appeal of his dismissal as a probation officer. The court affirmed the Commission's denial because Ford failed to adequately allege that his counsel did not receive timely notice of the Commission's decision, which is required to establish grounds for a belated appeal.
The Commission's order denying the belated appeal request was properly affirmed because Ford's request was facially insufficient. While a party who fails to receive timely notice of an administrative order and thereby loses the opportunity to appeal should not be without remedy, Ford did not adequately allege facts establishing such circumstances since he admitted being represented by counsel but failed to allege that his counsel did not receive timely notice.
[1] An appellate court, not an administrative agency, has the authority to allow a belated appeal.
[2] A party who fails to receive timely notice of an administrative order and consequently loses the opportunity to file a timely appeal should not be without a remedy.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A party who fails to receive a timely notice of the entry of an administrative order thereby losing the opportunity to file a timely appeal, should not be without a remedy.”
Establishes the general principle that parties should have recourse when denied notice prevents timely appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFord was dismissed as a probation officer. The Public Employees Relations Commission sustained his dismissal. Ford attempted to appeal to the appellat…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice Of Appeal Filing Deadline cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Ford appeals from an order of the Public Employees Relations Commission, which denied his request for a belated appeal. In a prior appeal, Ford had sought to appeal the Public Employees Relations Commission’s order, which sustained his dismissal as a probation officer.1 That appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was filed some five months after the Commission’s decision was rendered.
After this court dismissed that appeal, Ford filed a request with the Commission to be permitted to file a belated appeal. The Commission ruled that only the appellate court has the authority to allow a belated appeal. That is the ruling before us in this proceeding.
A party who fails to receive a timely notice of the entry of an administrative order thereby losing the opportunity to file a timely appeal, should not be without a remedy. In Millinger v. Broward County Mental Health Division and Risk Management, 672 So. 2d 24, 27 (Fla.1996), the Florida Supreme Court noted that a set of egregious circumstances could occur which prevented a litigant from timely filing an appeal and that problem could be remedied either by the agency or by an appellate court. As an example, the court noted that a due process violation would probably occur if an agency’s order had been entered but never actually provided to the litigants and the time to file an appeal had passed. See also New Washington Heights Community Development Conference v. Department of Community Affairs, 515 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), disapproved on other grounds in Millinger (where state action deprived appellant of ability to file a timely administrative appeal, appellant could apply to the administrative agency to vacate and re-enter the order from which appellant could then timely appeal).
The problem in this case is that Ford’s request for a belated appeal (whether directed to this court or to the Commission) is facially insufficient. He alleges he did not receive timely notice of the entry of the final order. However, he admitted he was represented by counsel and he did not allege that his counsel did not receive timely notice. For that reason, the Commission’s order denying his request for a belated appeal is affirmed.
AFFIRMED. GRIFFIN, C.J., concurs.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs in result only.
. Appeal No. 97-351 dismissed by order.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. Terry Hunt Constr. Co. & Superior, 878 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…an order or notice on an attorney if the administrative complaint has been filed and served, and if the attorney has appeared in the case.”). For the same reason discussed above, the E/C’s reliance on Ford v. Public Employees Relations Commission, 717 So. 2d 149, 150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), is misplaced because that argument does not take into account the requirement of section 440.25(4)(e) that the order be sent to a claimant’s attorney of record. Also, in relying on Ford, the E/C disregard the holding of Tay…
-
Evelyne Etienne v. Simco Recycling Corp., 721 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…2d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959), cert. denied, 117 So. 2d 495 (Fla.1959), the situation is not “irremediable.” See Millinger v. Broward County Mental Health Div. and Risk Management, 672 So. 2d 24 (Fla.1996); Ford v. Public Employees Relations Commission, 717 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Under similar circumstances, in untimely appeals from circuit court orders, the appropriate remedy has been to dismiss the untimely appeal without prejudice, allowing the appellant to pursue relief in the lower court by motion…
-
Suit v. State, 901 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…v. State, 869 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Stanley, 757 So. 2d at 1275; E.S. v. State, 886 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); J.W. v. State, 849 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); King v. State, 779 So. 2d 466, 467 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); D.M.H. v. State, 717 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). These cases, however, involve items that are either commonly recognizable, like firearms or knives, or items that were actually recovered and placed in evidence, as was the case in Dale. Here, the device was not available for id…
Authorities Cited
- Millinger v. Broward Cnty. Mental Health Div. & Risk Mgmt., 672 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1996)
- New Wash. Heights Cmty. Dev. Conf. v. Dep't OF Cmty. Affairs, 515 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)